10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

Ladajo provided:

1- The E-Cat is absolutely safe, does not emit absolutely any kind of radiation in the room: we made thousands of hours of tests. You can install with absolute safety an E-Cat inside your room.
2- There will never be any kind of gamma emission, but our control panel will detect any kind of radiation anyway, and in case of detection of any kind of radiation above the background will stop the E-Cat. But, again we never detected radiations above the background outside the E-Cat ( Background radiation is the radiation you have in your room right noew, coming from the Universe).

Cetainly looks like a poor choise of wording. He says "does not emit absolutely any kind of radiation in the room" but then clarifies with "we never detected radiations above the background outside the E-Cat". If you WANT him to be a liar you could jump on this as "a lie". But it is also a typical result of the continued use of language. Unconvincing. No "smoking gun".

[ladajo]

And the other quote samples? You wanted facts, I gave them. A number of direct quotes from Rossi that show a clear pattern of changing story and contradictions (polite word for lies).

That is all you've got???

Poor use of language???

Come on.

[KitemanSA]

And the other quote samples? You wanted facts, I gave them. A number of direct quotes from Rossi that show a clear pattern of changing story and contradictions (polite word for lies).

That is all you've got???

Poor use of language???

Come on.

Do you mean:

Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been detected. Recently in a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a ‘cold fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because we have found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a positron and an electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I do not think this is the main energy source.” Exactly how these gamma rays are shielded is not clear, but Rossi has mentioned in the past that lead is used.

First, this is hear-say, someone said he said. But assuming it is in fact a direct quote, couldn't "traces" and "not ... the main energy source" be equivalent to not exceeding background? Again, no smoking gun.

I find it interesting that you all would spend SO MUCH TIME trying to convince me. I suspect you are trying to rationalize your decision to yourself. Don't be too bothered by that. It is a classic characteristic of "J"s in the MBTI. Decide, then justify. If so, you aren't unique. "J"s are the predominant type in society. Of course, technical types tend towrd being "P"s, but not all.
"J"s seem to be the basis for the quip "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal".

[parallel]

Session 462 Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics

Write up by ColdFusionNow
http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=15644

[ladajo]

And the other quote samples? You wanted facts, I gave them. A number of direct quotes from Rossi that show a clear pattern of changing story and contradictions (polite word for lies).

That is all you've got???

Poor use of language???

Come on.

Do you mean:

Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been detected. Recently in a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a ‘cold fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because we have found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a positron and an electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I do not think this is the main energy source.” Exactly how these gamma rays are shielded is not clear, but Rossi has mentioned in the past that lead is used.

First, this is hear-say, someone said he said. But assuming it is in fact a direct quote, couldn't "traces" and "not ... the main energy source" be equivalent to not exceeding background? Again, no smoking gun.

I find it interesting that you all would spend SO MUCH TIME trying to convince me. I suspect you are trying to rationalize your decision to yourself. Don't be too bothered by that. It is a classic characteristic of "J"s in the MBTI. Decide, then justify. If so, you aren't unique. "J"s are the predominant type in society. Of course, technical types tend towrd being "P"s, but not all.
"J"s seem to be the basis for the quip "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal".

Hear-say. Hah. It is all direct quotes from Rossi. Even that interview is backed up with the direct quote cite.

Rossi is also quoted previously saying that the gamma is the heating mechaism via the lead blanket.

But again, this is but one point of many.

What about the other sample I have spoon fed you?

Factories, no factories, 1MW units, no 1MW units, Units operating, no units operating, etc. etc.

[tomclarke]

ladajo - you have put much more work into ferretting out Rossi inconsistencies than is really merited. It amazes me they are not accepted. All anyone has to do is read his blog conversations in detail on anything technical and they will form the opinion that he is a crowd-pleasing BSer with no substance who will say whatever seems good regardless of truth. All his other actions and statements are consistent with this.

KitemanSA -

There is something weird about your posts on this thread. It gets under my skin. I guess the same with ladajo.

It is surely clear that Rossi's comments, again and again, have turned out not to be true - or at least when interpreted as a normal person would are not true.

I don't think you need to be any specific type to see this from the evidence above.

If you start by assuming that Piantelli has found real LENR reactions and Rossi is doing something with this technology, the most favourable assumption, then presumably his stuff might work. However it is clear:

Rossi has never demonstrated this stuff working

As has been pointed out by others he behaves in a way indistinguishable from what would be expected were he a fraud.

He repeatedly makes comments which contradict each other, and the facts. A few of these are documented above.

I'll just add one technical issue. The ash isotopic measurements of Kullander et al from his sample which showed tracs of copper with isotope ratio identical to natural abundance are damning. Rossi, challenged about this on his blog, leapt in to agree with a poster who suggested that maybe he isotopically enriched his nickel to explain what would otherwise be an inconsistency. However he also says that his catalyst is very cheap (sorry Kite, I can't be bothered to ferret out direct quote but it is there, as is the above converstaion, on his blog. I commented on this thread about it ages ago). It is inconceivable that Rossi invents both a viable LENR source and a new cheap way to isotopically enrich nickel! It is also highly suspicious that the reaction products should turn out coincidentally to have natural abundance. This was the fact that tipped me towards being strongly skeptical that he has anything, and also viewing Rossi statements as totally unreliable. (The two things are not quite the same).

The statements about US factories appear incontrovertably to be lies, since he claims existence of a factory producing E-cat's in US 12 months ago, and never having any such factory 1 month ago.

The statements and retractions about testing of his device by NASA and UoB are so different from the other parties reports that they are grossly misleading.

There is very strong evidence that he has asked for, and received, money from other parties for "licenses" to sell e-cats, all without any working E-cat.

The most favourable interpretation of this is that he is a BSer of an extreme sort and therefore his statements about e-cats cannot be believed. A superficially more likely interpretation is that he is a fraud.

His claims to show new technology therefore are less substantial than those of many "real" LENR reserchers: in spite of appearing stronger. That is true whatever your view of the likelihood of said other claims being true.

[seedload]

Jeez, that is interesting isn't it. Should we all sit about and discuss our nondescript, non-specific, integrated sense of things rather than actually trying to present our reasons for thinking what we do.

In order to "reason" I need "fact. There are few. So yes, all I have to tell you is that nondescript...

If you need absolute fact in order to reason than I suspect you haven't had much practice with reasoning, because there is little absolute fact in this world. Probably explains a lot about why it is so difficult to communicate with you.

Funny that others actually try to have a discussion, presenting their reasoning, and all you can do is argue about the meaning of the word 'fact'.

They try to convince me that their CONCLUSIONS are based of facts. I simple ask to see the facts. What I have seem MOST of is discussion of other people's opinion being called fact.

From what I have seen, in the majority of cases, it is YOU that is attaching the tag word fact to ordinary statements by others, again taking simple conversation and converting it to a tug-o-war debate over the meaning of the word that you introduced. As you stated above, you require absolute and undeniable fact before you are able to apply reason to a problem. Others here are capable of ordinary human thought.

But remember, I feel no need to jump to conclusion, so as suggestive as the quotes may be, if they don't constitute "a smoking gun" then I will still withold judgement.

Which is all well and good except for your need to jump all over anyone who presents a reasoned argument by converting their simple conversational statements into statements of 'fact and then presenting obvious but unlikely alternative explanations as if they somehow negate the original reasoning.

Finding an example of why a statement is not a fact is really easy game to play. Actually considering something is more difficult.

[parallel]

Piantelli Presents Nickel-Hydrogen LENR Research Data in Siena, Italy — 20W In, 71W Out
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/piant ... ena-italy/

See the linked slides.

More experimental error Tom will say. Nobody can ever do a LENR experiment properly by definition.

[seedload]

ladajo - you have put much more work into ferretting out Rossi inconsistencies than is really merited. It amazes me they are not accepted. All anyone has to do is read his blog conversations in detail on anything technical and they will form the opinion that he is a crowd-pleasing BSer with no substance who will say whatever seems good regardless of truth. All his other actions and statements are consistent with this.

KitemanSA -

There is something weird about your posts on this thread. It gets under my skin. I guess the same with ladajo.

It is surely clear that Rossi's comments, again and again, have turned out not to be true - or at least when interpreted as a normal person would are not true.

I don't think you need to be any specific type to see this from the evidence above.

If you start by assuming that Piantelli has found real LENR reactions and Rossi is doing something with this technology, the most favourable assumption, then presumably his stuff might work. However it is clear:

Rossi has never demonstrated this stuff working

As has been pointed out by others he behaves in a way indistinguishable from what would be expected were he a fraud.

He repeatedly makes comments which contradict each other, and the facts. A few of these are documented above.

I'll just add one technical issue. The ash isotopic measurements of Kullander et al from his sample which showed tracs of copper with isotope ratio identical to natural abundance are damning. Rossi, challenged about this on his blog, leapt in to agree with a poster who suggested that maybe he isotopically enriched his nickel to explain what would otherwise be an inconsistency. However he also says that his catalyst is very cheap (sorry Kite, I can't be bothered to ferret out direct quote but it is there, as is the above converstaion, on his blog. I commented on this thread about it ages ago). It is inconceivable that Rossi invents both a viable LENR source and a new cheap way to isotopically enrich nickel! It is also highly suspicious that the reaction products should turn out coincidentally to have natural abundance. This was the fact that tipped me towards being strongly skeptical that he has anything, and also viewing Rossi statements as totally unreliable. (The two things are not quite the same).

The statements about US factories appear incontrovertably to be lies, since he claims existence of a factory producing E-cat's in US 12 months ago, and never having any such factory 1 month ago.

The statements and retractions about testing of his device by NASA and UoB are so different from the other parties reports that they are grossly misleading.

There is very strong evidence that he has asked for, and received, money from other parties for "licenses" to sell e-cats, all without any working E-cat.

The most favourable interpretation of this is that he is a BSer of an extreme sort and therefore his statements about e-cats cannot be believed. A superficially more likely interpretation is that he is a fraud.

His claims to show new technology therefore are less substantial than those of many "real" LENR reserchers: in spite of appearing stronger. That is true whatever your view of the likelihood of said other claims being true.

Tom,

I also agree that ladajo's research is amazing in its depth and lack of acceptance. I agree that Kite's approach to this is very frustrating.

Yes, the moment Rossi fumbled on the issues of isotopic ratios of copper and invented the isotopic enrichment claims is the moment that Rossi entered the zero credibility zone for me. Prior, I had a modicum of hope. Afterwards, near zero. I said as much and documented as much as I could on this issue and, like ladajo, met with unreasonable resistance.

Oh, and you are missing something from your list. A post that has mysteriously never been responded to by a Rossi proponent.

SImon,

It is strange how you and many others here, are so certain the E-Cat is a fraud. LENR is real as you posted. The evidence we have (a couple of dozen reliable witnesses) leans towards it being real, but no one can tell for certain until until there is independent proof. There seems no way he can make money from this without the customer checking first. So, what drives you to take such a firm position?

Look, parallel. You believe that anyone who thinks Rossi is a fraud must necessarily be a "pathological skeptic" - a catch phrase that you love to trot out. You fail to acknowledge that there are people who don't believe Rossi with good reason.

Do you even know what Rossi is claiming?

First, in his patent, he says that three reactions are occurring, Nickel and Hydrogen fusing to make Copper, Nickel and two hydrogens to make Zinc, and other Fission reactions that create stable products. This is IN HIS PATENT! He also claims that unstable isotopes of Nickel and Copper are formed that undergo decay over a short period of time, so short as to not matter because the radiation is shielded. He claims that he had the ash analyzed to show the appropriate products for both the copper formation AND the fission! Stable elements popping out from fission! Again, in his patent.

Second, he published a paper on his website saying that the reaction is between Nickel and Hydrogen forming copper and other isotopes of Nickel and Copper that are radioactive but undergo quick decay, again stating that shielding protects against the radiation. He goes into detail regarding the isotopes and the energy gain from both the initial reactions and the decay processes. He is claiming decay happens and produces some if not most of the energy. There are also some long lived radioactive isotopes produced. This is in the paper, clearly stated. He again claims to have isotopically analyzed the ash. Fission has disappeared from his claims.

Third, on his blog, under questioning about isotopes, he begins claiming that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react forming stable copper. Meanwhile Focardi continues to claim unstable isotopes of copper and nickel are formed that decay to also produce heat. Rossi's story has changed dramatically. Focardi's is staying close to the same.

Finally, Rossi begins talking about doing safety testing on his reactor by intentionally causing it to "explode". Assuming that what Focardi continues to say and what Rossi originally said, that there are unstable isotopes created that undergo quick decay, then this poses a problem. In an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be shot outside of the containment (boron and lead shielding) and would create a significant radiation event. I asked him about this directly. He said that there is NO RADIATION in an explosion but that he can't go into details. This answer NECESSARILY means that there are not radioactive isotopes in the reactor at any time.

So, he originally claimed radioactive isotopes and decay heat but now claims none. He originally claimed fission events but now claims none. He originally claimed fusion of all isotopes of Nickel to both Zinc and Copper but now claims only NI62/64 fuse. He originally claimed energy from the decay heat and now claims no radiation when the reaction chamber is spontaniously opened. He said he tested the ash specifically for isotopic ratios in his patent and in his white paper and now makes claims counter to that testing.

Now, I ask you, why would you term someone like me, who actually takes the time to read his claims and research his claims, and actually ask him about his claims a "pathological skeptic" when I am taking steps to try to understand his ridiculousness? When you add in all the other evidence regarding his caginess, his claims of isotopic enrichment, his claims of customers, his ploys to get credibility without actually commissioning tests, his history, and his apparently impotent production capabilities, a skeptical opinion is fully justified.

Sorry, you are wrong. There is nothing pathological about my skepticism. Nor is there anything pathological about Georgio's or Msimon's or most of the other skeptical opinions on this board.

This is reasonable skepticism, not pathological.

FYI:

Andrea Rossi
November 28th, 2011 at 7:01 PM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
I confirm that no radiations above the background in relevant measure have been found in the controlled explosive tests. I cannot enter in particulars, because I cannot give information regarding what happens in the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Charlie Zimmerman
November 28th, 2011 at 9:32 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

I was interested in your comments regarding intentionally causing explosions of the device during safety testing. I had previously understood that short half lived radioactive isotopes of Copper and Nickel were rapidly decaying within the device and that this radioactivity was shielded. But, during an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be exposed to the environment without shielding before they would have a chance to decay.

1) Are there short lived radioactive isotopes as in your patent and paper published here?
2) Do those radioactive isotopes escape during an explosion?
3) Are you taking proper precautions yourself against such dangers?

A concerned fan,
Charlie Zimmerman

[seedload]

Piantelli Presents Nickel-Hydrogen LENR Research Data in Siena, Italy — 20W In, 71W Out
...
More experimental error Tom will say. Nobody can ever do a LENR experiment properly by definition.

From a scientific perspective, this is exactly the reason for the desire for independent replication of results. If this is in fact what Tom would say, then bully for Tom.

We have indication that the phenomenon takes place at the surface of the sample; we have seen in previous experiments a transmutation effect.=>We want to evaluate the residue by means of SEM-EDAX and SIMS technique

What a particularly odd statement.

They want to evaluate the residue, but they haven't done it yet. Why not? Why present results before you do something incredibly valuable that you say you want to do. Oh, and, by the way, we got similar results before and had some 'evidence' of transmutation but didn't bother to fully evaluate the residue then either.

... and it cures cancer!

Hopefully, there is something to LENR, but I doubt it will come from Piantelli.

regards

[tomclarke]

Piantelli Presents Nickel-Hydrogen LENR Research Data in Siena, Italy — 20W In, 71W Out
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/piant ... ena-italy/

See the linked slides.

More experimental error Tom will say. Nobody can ever do a LENR experiment properly by definition.

Parallel. I can make an experiment with 1W in, 10W out easily, without any chemical or nuclear reactions.

And to be fair, it is mostly the very few LENR reserchers who present evidence of positive results as ppt slides, rather than peer-reviewed papers, and then set up companies, whom I suspect of glossing over possible errors.

Perhaps you could look at the data (it does exist, I hope?) and calculate for us the ratio of:

Total energy in/ Total energy out
[note power in / power out is irrelevant]

Then work out error bars for the energy out based on the calorimetry used.

Then work out the max total chemical energy that could be expected if hydrogen combines with O2 from air (since Piantelli claims his experiments have leaky joints) and metal alloy oxidises or forms hydride or whatever. you need to do every posisbility and see whaich is largest I am afraid.

I know it is a lot of work, and perhaps Piantelli has done it, but figures will mean nothing except in context, and the context requires at least the above. Maybe some more stuff as well.

Best wishes, Tom

[parallel]

tomclarke,

I can make an experiment with 1W in, 10W out easily, without any chemical or nuclear reactions.

Ooo, you are claiming you would cheat? No wonder you don't believe anybody else.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

I can make an experiment with 1W in, 10W out easily, without any chemical or nuclear reactions.

Ooo, you are claiming you would cheat? No wonder you don't believe anybody else.

I'll let somone else explain (in principle) why 1W in , 10W out is easy without cheating.

Then I'll post a non-cheating implementation of this pirnciple using nothing but water, glass tubing, and a small electric heater. that is if no-one beats me to it!

[KitemanSA]

What about the other sample I have spoon fed you?

Factories, no factories, 1MW units, no 1MW units, Units operating, no units operating, etc. etc.

Your long list of "to wit:"s? I responded to each and every one of them. Not happy with the responses I have spoon fed you?

[ladajo]

Well, as far as I can tell, Kite is purely baiting on this topic. I have given him three or so pages of direct Rossi quotes showing complete story reversals and changes on the fly. And, it seems that Kite can only try to word twist one.
I guess that means he has no argument with the rest.

Rossi is a multiple direct quoted liar.

I too hold out some hope that LENR is real. And I do not attach that to anything that Rossi has done, or does. Rossi is his own animal, and IMO doing more to hurt the LENR realm than help.